Why do we need any one denomination?

[Hazelelponi]

Unlike early churches, we are blessed with bibles, software, real time internet chat so we can learn and discuss what we learn. We have every denomination on CF, not just one like at church on Sunday. How can a Sunday sermon compete with that?

Correct doctrine.

 

[Radagast]

There is much that could be done and undertaken if the group was on one accord.

And that's exactly why denominations are so great. People are "of one accord" (more or less) within the denomination.

Being a denomination of one person means that you're never "of one accord" with anybody.

 

[Radagast]

.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Unlike early churches, we are blessed with bibles, software, real time internet chat so we can learn and discuss what we learn. We have every denomination on CF, not just one like at church on Sunday. How can a Sunday sermon compete with that?

I think your point is a valid one. Being exposed to the un-unified part of Christianity will not only expand our own understanding of division but we can come together in Christ to bridge some of those divisions.

 

[Monksailor]

I think the dilemma you have may be explained by a newly (last 30 yrs or so) adopted and growing idea of what being social is all about. Forty years ago if someone said they were being social by typing on a typewriter (keyboard) they would have been taken as anti-social-afraid to go out and really socialize-talk face-to-face with people. When I took Social Science in college in the mid 70's it was all about the study of face-to-face social interaction. It has been replaced as a basic academic requirement with more generalized classes like Sociology "101" and Psych "101." I know because after retirement I updated my college transcript by going back to college. Some of the material I learned in Social Sci (2 sem) was in the Psych class but very little in the Sociology class. The later was more about cultural significance and differentiation around the globe bathed in an aroma of acceptance and tolerance.

Us "older" folk have experienced first hand the richness (however experienced) of direct, face-to-face interaction/dialog in a culture predicated upon such relationships. Such relationships are not created quickly or easily and can be as painful as they can be overflowing with joy. It takes time and it is a "two steps forward, one step back process", but it was worth it. One had to develop their social skills through trail and error; eye contact, voice inflection, voice intonation, voice volume, body language, and so on; NONE of which are accurately communicated without face to face communication. Emoticons try but they are only a generalized and digital form.

Relatively few people want to take the time and hammer through the trouble to develop such relationships anymore. Depth and quality of relationships (intimacy) is being replaced with quantity of "contacts" with shallow connected-ness (loyalty.) Quantity of favorable or "liked" virtually unknown contacts (popularity) seems to take precedence over fewer, more intimately familiar ones who REALLY know you.

It IS interesting that when Adam had sex with Eve we read "Adam knew Eve." It clearly implies depth of relational intimacy.

 

[bling]

Why do we need any one denomination? We have the apostle's teaching, and CF for discussion, also computers and bible software. As Paul said, all things are ours.

Where there is money to be made, people will do what they can to make money off of any good thing. If you have just small house churches having little money, no paid positions and the threat of persecution of the leadership, you have no “denominations” (like we see with the unregistered church in China), but if you can combine some of these house churches to the point together they can afford paid positions, with no threat of persecution, than you need to distinguish yourself from the others and get money.

 

[PaulCyp1]

Denominations are a violation of the plainly stated will of Jesus Christ concerning His followers. Jesus founded ONE Church, said it was to remain ONE, and promised that ONE Church "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". He wanted us to have a single authoritative source of truth that would enable us to remain united as His followers. His plainly stated will for us was and still is, "That they all may be ONE, even as I and my heavenly Father are ONE". Obviously this means NO conflicting beliefs. NO denominations. Conflicting beliefs necessarily mean false beliefs, because truth cannot conflict with truth. Denominations by definition are unauthorized manmade churches that came into existence by defecting from the ONE Church Jesus Christ founded, thereby abandoning the fullness of truth promised to that ONE Church. This lack of truth is demonstrated by the fact that those who have defected from His Church have fragmented into thousands of conflicting denominations, teaching thousands of conflicting and therefore false beliefs, in just a few hundred years. Meanwhile, the ONE Church He founded remains ONE in belief, ONE in teaching, ONE in worship, ONE in biblical understanding throughout the world after 2,000 years, with NO conflicting denominations and NO false teachings. You just can't beat God's plan.

 

[Albion]

Denominations are a violation of the plainly stated will of Jesus Christ concerning His followers. Jesus founded ONE Church, said it was to remain ONE, and promised that ONE Church "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". He wanted us to have a single authoritative source of truth that would enable us to remain united as His followers.

Where did you get THAT one? I recognize the others (which do not refer to denominations), but I see no citation for this claim.

 

[Radagast]

Jesus founded ONE Church, said it was to remain ONE

So remind me, what was 1054 all about?

 

[LoveofTruth]

All Christians (i.e., sinners saved, believers, those born of water and the Spirit) are "in Christ"; therefore they are all one with the Father, and one with each other as well. Notice carefully what Christ says in John 17:22-23: "[I pray] that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity."

The basis of that unity is not a denominational affiliation; it is our position in Christ.

Hello and God bless. Just curious what you mean when you say “born of water”?

 

[LoveofTruth]

Why do we need any one denomination? We have the apostle's teaching, and CF for discussion, also computers and bible software. As Paul said, all things are ours.

Denomination means to make a name. This is carnal as we read in 1 Cor 1 and other places. We also see some making a name in the story of the Tower of Babel. Mystery Babylon may have some connection to this. Babel is confusion and a house divided against itself won’t stand.

1 Corinthians 1:10. Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.11. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.12. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.13. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?”

1 Corinthians 3:3. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?”

 

[Radagast]

Denomination means to make a name.

Wrong.

 

[fhansen]

Why do we need any one denomination? We have the apostle's teaching, and CF for discussion, also computers and bible software. As Paul said, all things are ours.

Well, most believers down through the centuries were arguably illiterate, let alone lacking in computers and bible software. And going by Scripture alone there are major disagreements on the apostle's teachings. And it's very difficult to believe that God would leave us without a means to sort this out, to know and have a unity of the faith, with "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph 4:5). And only an entity, the church He established at the beginning, would be able to carry out such a duty.

 

[Radagast]

And only an entity, the church He established at the beginning, would be able to carry that out.

Oh, you mean the Orthodox church?

Because either we have denominations, or we are two billion people where no two have anything in common, or we all become Orthodox.

 

[fhansen]

Oh, you mean the Orthodox church?

Because either we have denominations, or we are two billion people where no two have anything in common, or we all become Orthodox.

Yes, as a part of the whole. There's only one church, and Christ definitely established it, with a purpose. Orthodox & Catholic, with their origins dating to the beginning, share the same basic gospel, whereas that gospel is generally diverged from significantly when going by Scripture alone.

 

[Albion]

Well, most believers down through the centuries were arguably illiterate, let alone lacking in computers and bible software. And going by Scripture alone there are major disagreements on the apostle's teachings. And it's very difficult to believe that God would leave us without a means to sort this out, to know and have a unity of the faith, with "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph 4:5). And only an entity, the church He established at the beginning, would be able to carry out such a duty.

What you've done is convert an expressed desire on the part of Christ that his followers be of one mind into a command or a prophesy. It is neither. And then you have selected, on your own, one means by which you assume, incorrectly, that that might be achieved. There is no denomination, not even yours, in which all the members are united in belief.

 

[Radagast]

whereas that gospel is generally diverged from significantly when going by Scripture alone.

So you're saying that the gospel taught in Catholic churches has elements that don't exist in Scripture?

“…we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.” -- Gregory of Nyssa

 

[fhansen]

What you've done is convert an expressed desire on the part of Christ that his followers be of one mind into a command or a prophesy. It is neither. And then you have selected, on your own, one means by which you assume, incorrectly, that that might be achieved. There is no denomination, not even yours, in which all the members are united in belief.

How could you possibly think it has anything to do with what individual members believe? The unity of faith is within the teachings of the Church. And Sola Scriptura has proven itself unable to produce and maintain such unity, on its own. So then, we either have denominations raising their hands and saying "Hey, we, exclusively, have the correct understanding of the gospel based on our interpretation, or we look for a church that was simply established at the beginning that received and carried on the faith intact, with both its lived experienced (Tradition) and it's written word (Scripture) supporting that faith. Or we throw up our hands altogether and fall back to, "Well, unity of faith doesn't really matter that much."

 

[fhansen]

So you're saying that the gospel taught in Catholic churches has elements that don't exist in Scripture?

“…we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.” -- Gregory of Nyssa

Of course not. I'm saying that where sincere denominations and individuals disagree on the meaning of Scripture, using Scripture as the norm only ensures them that their interpretation is the correct one, and doesn't provide unity of the faith. And, BTW, the church agrees in her teachings that our understand of Scripture must be in "harmony with the intent of these writings." An intent which is known in part by the continuous historical understanding and practice of the church.

 

[Albion]

How could you possibly think it has anything to do with what individual members believe?

That's exactly what it means.

The unity of faith is within the teachings of the Church.

If you want to say that, but it still is people believing it that is the object of the statement.

And Sola Scriptura has proven itself unable to produce and maintain such unity

Assuming (incorrectly) that such is the meaning of Sola Scriptura or its purpose, your alternative, Tradition, has produced just as much disunity -- or arguably more disunity -- than Sola Scriptura.

So then, we either have denominations raising their hands and saying "Hey, we, exclusively, have the correct understanding of the gospel based on our interpretation, or we look for a church that was simply established at the beginning that received and carried on the faith intact, with both its lived experienced (Tradition) and it's written word (Scripture) supporting that faith. Or we throw up our hands altogether and fall back to, "Well, unity of faith doesn't really matter that much."

Almost none of that is accurate. It is mainly a recitation of what you would LIKE the situation to be...but is not.

furthermore, such wishful thinking is nothing that Christians of every denomination wouldn't prefer. Sure, unity of belief would be more desirable and right than disunity. There is no disagreement there.